Time to review Joseph Goebbels' Titanic movie. Now, he's not technically the director but he was the main driving force behind the movie so I'm laying all the blame on him.

The actors in the film are quite good. The performances are improved when you find out about the nightmare the production was. Especially good is Sybille Schmitz, who plays the lead female Sigrid. Tragically, she ended up being blacklisted (and possibly lead to her death) for her part in this. Also of note is that this film basically inspired virtually every other Titanic movie since this one. So the next time you're watching An Affair To Remember* and the James Cameron version, remember that it was inspired by the Nazis! And the direction by Herbert Selpin.

Unfortunately, Selpin only directed part of the film. After he called out the officers checking on the production for molesting the female cast members, Goebbels and him arrested and killed. The rest of the film is directed by Werner Klingler who, to be honest, isn't as good a director. The dialogue in the film is full of howlers. The actors gave it their all, but they don't have much to work with. At on point, an old lady says "This ship is unsinkable!" The technical aspects aren't very good either. When a lifeboat falls into water, it's blatantly obvious that it's not real even by 1940's standards.

Easily the worst thing about the film is the propaganda aspects. The sinking of the Titanic is re-written as a story about how evil and greedy the British were. The heroes of the film are the Germans who save the surviving passengers while the British get away. The propaganda scenes stick out and stop the film in its tracks. And the kicker is, the film ended up being banned by Goebbels. The German citizens, devastated by the war, couldn't enjoy the film so they didn't get anything from the propaganda. So, a talented director was killed, a talented actress' career was ruined, and all of the stars (especially the female ones) were the traumatized for nothing.

The acting saves it from being a complete wash, but it's not enough. Grade: C+

Next-up: Since The Island Of Dr. Moreau is taking forever to come, I'll review one of the films in my definite column.

*Some of the shots in this film are actually re-used in An Affair To Remember

Wow... this movie is so hard to review properly. It's one of those films where it's just so good to the point where it's hard to say anything wrong with it. As much as I love this movie though, The Wizard of Oz is flawed in a few different ways. So I guess let's just dive right in. I also promise not to mention "Wicked" too much considering the book didn't even exist yet.

Should I even describe the story to you? I mean you all know it... okay might as well do this right. Dorothy Gale (Judy Garland) wants to find a new place to explore Over The Rainbow and a twister of fate (literally) whisks her away to The Land of Oz. There she comes across all sort of characters like The Scarecrow with no brain, The Tin Man with no heart and a Lion with no courage at all. However, Dorothy longs to go back home but the only way to do that is to see The Wizard Of Oz. She'll have to face the Wicked witch of The West along the way with other obstacles as well. I'll just have say this movie does feel really timeless. I mean yeah there are one or two times when you can tell these people are on a movie set but a lot of the time it genuinely feels like Oz is a true and real place.

The movie is pretty to look at, but what about the characters? Honestly, they're great too. There isn't much to Dorothy as a character, but it's really touching to see how much she wants to go home because she is so worried about her Aunt Em. The Scare Crow, Tin Man and Lion more than half the time get some funny lines. The Wicked Witch of The West is awesome, but kind of one dimensional. This is why a story like Wicked is needed for this character. Almost like with Maleficent, The Wicked Witch is awesome at being evil but really doesn't have a motivation. Yeah you can make the argument she wants revenge for her flattened sister under Dorothy's house, but she never really brings her up. Supposedly, those ruby slippers have some type of power to them but again I don't see how they would be useful to a plan we know nothing about. Still, The wicked Witch is a pretty cool villain.

The music in this film is really great. I think there are only two songs I don't like. First off, the whole Munchkin song routine goes on forever and it gets old really quickly. Also, The Lion's song about wanting to be king of the forest really doesn't do anything for me either. Besides those two, I love these musical numbers. My Favorite has to be Somewhere Over The Rainbow. Can you believe they almost cut out this song for time? Wow that probably would've been a huge mistake. I have listened to Somewhere Over The Rainbow at least 120 times. Then again, I have listened to "Defying Gravity" probably thousands of times but again we're not suppose to be talking about Wicked aren't we?

There are two major things that really bother me in The Wizard of Oz. The first is a line spoken by The Wizard when he's giving the Tin Man his "heart". This line totally drives me nuts. "It 's not important how much you love, but how much you're loved by others". Um yeah this is pretty messed up. He completely has that line backwards. You should just love your heart out even if some people won't appreciate you for it. Anyway, the other big issue I have with this film is also a big issue a lot of people have with it. This might be somewhat of a spoiler, but again I'm sure all of you know it. Glinda pretty much knew all along that the Ruby Slippers could've took Dorothy home 2 seconds after she got to Oz. Don't get me wrong, I know the reasoning why Glinda didn't tell her this important fact even if I don't understand it. Dorothy was suppose to learn that her heart's desire was and always will be in Kansas. However you could make the argument that Dorothy knew this for the longest time. That's why she wouldn't stop talking about going back to Kansas. All Glinda had to do was tell her and she wouldn't have almost died at the hands of The Wicked Witch. So Dorothy was put in the middle of this huge mess in Oz because...? Yeah that's a huge problem in an otherwise great film.

The Wizard of Oz is truly an amazing film. Yeah, there are two huge problems that make it impossible to say it's a perfect film but I think being amazing is enough. It has great songs, great characters, a wonderful (sometimes confusing) story and also great acting from the entire cast. Needless to say, I highly recommend The Wizard of Oz.

I may be awful to say this, but...it has been bothering me since childhood: Am I the only person who thinks Judy Garland at that time looked much too old to play Dorothy? She was about 16/17 at the time, and in my honest opinion could have passed as an 18 year old.. That's why the film never was "super-convincing" for me as a child...

Supposedly, Shirley Temple was actually going to be Dorothy at one time. Then, someone who was working on the film (I guess the director) thought she didn't have the singing talent so they hired Garland instead.

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: Actually, the "back story" on M-G-M's desire to have Shirley Temple star in WIZARD OF OZ is much more interesting than stated above. In 1936, when M-G-M was in the early planning stages on OZ, Temple was the #1 box office star in America, and studio execs figured casting her as Dorothy would guarantee a box office hit. In fact, they were so enamored of the idea that they were willing to "trade" Temple's services in OZ for two of M-G-M's biggest stars, Clark Gable and Jean Harlow, to star in Fox's IN OLD CHICAGO. But before the deal could be finalized, Harlow unexpectedly died, and the arrangement was no longer possible.

Since Garland was already under contract to M-G-M, and had impressed everyone on the lot by singing "Dear Mr. Gable" at studio head Louis B/ Mayer's annual birthday party, it was decided to give Judy a shot. To "compensate" Temple for losing out on the role of Dorothy, Fox mounted an imitation of OZ entitled THE BLUE BIRD, based on a European folk legend. As we all now know, OZ was an enormous box office hit and is today considered a classic. But BLUE BIRD totally bombed, contributing to Shirley's demise as a top-ranked/bankable movie star.

For the curious, here's an IMDb LINK to read about the 1940 version of BLUE BIRD...

It's hard to imagine Shirley Temple in the Dorothy role. I don't know, I've seen clips of Temple in other films and she just comes off too sweet and safe for a role like Dorothy Gale. I'm not just talking about the singing talent, but just acting talent in general.

Dorothy needed to be vulnerable and yet determined at the same time. I'm not sure someone like Temple would've been able to emote that.

From the moment I first saw THE WIZARD OF OZ until last year when I re-watched (to prepare for the release ofOZ: THE GREAT & POWERFUL), I honestly thought Garland was in her 30s. I found out her real age after re-watching it when I was reading the production history. I couldn't believe it!

Originally posted by Vheid

Am I the only person who thinks Judy Garland at that time looked much too old to play Dorothy? She was about 16/17 at the time, and in my honest opinion could have passed as an 18 year old.. That's why the film never was "super-convincing" for me as a child...

Time to review The League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen. I'm doing something a little different for this review: I'm combining my book V.S. film reviews with my 9 worst things review. This was going to be a normal book V.S. film review, but there's nothing about the film that the book doesn't do better. Then I tried to do a normal 9 worst things review, but I couldn't objectively review it without sniping at its adaptational failures. So, I'm merging them so I can snipe at it without feeling guilty about being unobjective.

9.) The marginalization of Captain Nemo: The Captain Nemo in the comics is a great character. He's easily the closest thing to a hero the League has. Witness his fury at the end of the second volume when he learns that M's defeat of the Martians killed many innocent people. He's so cool, that his daughter has her own miniseries. The Captain Nemo in this film is basically the designated driver of the film. Sure, he gets into a fight or two, but they're not memorable. And they get his personality all wrong. He seems like his league-members, but he hated most of them in the comic and only helped them for his own needs.

8.) Mr. Hyde is the Incredible Hulk now: For reasons unknown to sane men, the people behind the film decided to make Mr. Hyde an Incredible Hulk rip-off. Now, the Incredible Hulk is a take-off of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde but with a twist: the "evil" side does good and helps people. This film blatantly steals from the Hulk and Jekyll can even "release" him under his control at the end. It's like that scene from The Avengers where the Banner willingly releases the Hulk and kills a Chitari Leviathan. Except, really, really, really, really, really stupid.

7.) The Invisible Man: The Invisible Man of this film is called Rodney Skinner, an original creation by the (stupid) screenwriter. He's not on here because he's not Hawley*; he's on here because he's a complete 180 from Hawley's personality. Rodney is basically an overgrown, invisible child. Hawley represents how turning invisible would f*ck up your morality. I'll go into more detail when I get into #2.

6.) The ending: The ending of volume I is a great one: it ends with the League having saved the day and then shows the Martians from The War Of The Worlds about to land. The film ends with

the League winning but Allan dies. But don't worry: they bury him in Africa where a witch doctor brings him back, completely negating his sacrifice. Amusingly, this is similar to how Volume III.

5.) Allan Quatermain's badassification: In the comics, Allan is a shadow of his former self. He's a burnt-out opium user with nothing left to live for. In this film, Sean Connery's is just playing a nicer version Henry Jones Sr.

4.) Dorian Gray: I'm still confused as to why Dorian Gray is in this movie. He's absent from the comics, except for his picture getting a quick cameo. Not only does his powers make no sense (Dorian wasn't Deadpool, he can't just regenerate flesh), but his death makes no sense either. Mina shows Dorian his picture, which causes him to age and die. In the novel, Dorian ages up after he tried to destroy the picture. When I took a class on Oscar Wilde back in 2012, the teacher would often snark at this film when discussing Dorian Gray.**

3.) What the f*ck did they do to Mina?: Of all the character that get butchered in this film, Mina gets it the worst. In the comics, she a human and she's the leader of the League. In this abortion of a film, she's a straight-up vampire and subservient to Allan. Also, she's still married to Jonathan Harker in the film. She's single in the comics, freeing her up to have disgusting sex with Allan in Volume II.

2.) The whitewashing of the League: In a (failed) attempt to get as much box-office as possible, the makers of this film decided to remove anything objectable from the comics. Allan's opium use and Nemo's hatred of the other League members were annoying removals, but what the film does to the Invisible Man is just the worst. In the film, Skinner's an overgrown child. In the comics, Hawley is a disgusting monster. He's introduced molesting teenage girls, pretending to be the Holy Spirit. He later beats a police officer to death to steal his clothes, which makes him even more noticeable. I can understand not wanting to feature a character who's molests teenagers or kills police officers, but to replace him with an overgrown child is infuriating.

1.) Tom Sawyer: Dear God, what the f*ck where they thinking when they added Tom f*cking Sawyer to the film? Actually, we do know what they were thinking: the executives at 20th Century Fox wanted an American lead so American audiences could root for a character. Not only is this stupid, but it makes no sense: Shane West was in his '20s when this movie was made and Tom Sawyer should be as old as Allan.*** Couldn't they think of a less stupid American character to include.

Avoid this film at all costs, but make sure to read the comics! Grade: F

*Hawley's a public domain character in literature, but is still under copyright when it comes to film. It's the same reason why Fu Manchu is absent from the film.

**It's one of the two things notable things about the class. The other was that I met the cute girl who works at the Le Moyne library in this class.

***The film takes place in 1899 and Sawyer was a 12-year-old in the pre-Civil War era.

I couldn't agree more. The Blue Lagoon really is just that... dumb. I can care less about any of the characters in it. The Writing is awful, the pacing is unbelievably slow and of course Brooke Shields offers more proof she deserves the very first Razzie for Worst Actress. Man, this is going to be hard to review.

So these two kids get shipwrecked on this island along with some castaway who's acting is very unintentionally hilarious. So after this adult castaway dies, Richard (Christopher Atkins) and Emmeline (Brooke Shields) grow up on this island and... that's it. I mean it too, nothing happens in this movie. It feels like "Tarzan, The Ape Man" totally ripped off this movie. Literally, every scene in The Blue Lagoon is two teenagers swimming and playing in this jungle. Just like with Mac and Me, it's hard to review this movie because it's so empty. And really that's the biggest issue I have with The Blue Lagoon. The film doesn't give me a reason to care about the story or the characters. We know nothing about these two dim witted teenagers who obviously have no idea what they're doing.

The acting in this movie can be very funny. I mean it too, is Christopher Atkins even trying? Same goes for Brooke Shields, this performance might even be worse than the next movie she would be in: Endless Love. A strange thing I noticed in this movie is William Daniels is in this movie. Yes, Mr. Feeney from Boy Meets World is in a very small supporting role. What a waste of talent!

I guess the movie is sort of trying to be like "Lord of The flies" except you know this movie is very boring. I think the big message of this film is if kids have no guidance from an adult then they're doomed or something like that. However, the message alone doesn't make a good movie. We need a great story with fleshed out and relatable characters. I don't really relate to Richard or Em because basically there's not much to them. They are pretty much tool to a message that never really receives an execution. I guess the environment and the ocean is pretty to look at, but it's not worth seeing when you have to put up with mediocrity and awful acting.

The Blue Lagoon is a total waste of film. It would be one thing if the movie was just stupid, but it seems like the movie is just "blah". Just like our two main stars, it seems like the film doesn't even try in any way, shape or form to be something good. The acting is hilariously bad, the story is non-existent, the pacing overall seems to be always in slow motion and we have no idea what the movie was even trying to accomplish. Just please, watch something else if you come across this movie.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot create polls in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forum